When the war in Syria started, DAESH didn’t exist. They moved in later to take advantage of the situation. Al Qaeda/Al Nusra Front weren’t big early on either. The rebels were dominated by fairly moderate groups, and they were winning.

The US wasn’t intervening because they were worried that any weapons etc they provided would end up in the hands of rebels they didn’t like, like Al Nusra, Khorosan Group etc. (Incidentally, the same reason they refused to help the French resistance during WWII.)

It looked like Assad would lose. Then Russia began to supply him with weapons, ammunition etc. The slide slowed but didn’t stop. It was confirmed Assad was using chemical weapons and still Obama did not intervene despite the “Red Line”.

Assad was losing. Russia represented Assad in negotiations and continued to supply him with weapons etc, as did Iran. Quds forces also went to Syria. The US supplied non-lethal support to the rebels.

The “bad rebels” were getting stronger. They had more money, more supplies, and Turkey were allowing fighters through their borders for their own reasons. DAESH also paid their fighters significantly more than more moderate groups. As in Iraq, many joined them for reasons of survival.

The US began bombing raids against DAESH, Al Nusra, Khorosan Group etc. from Iraq. They warned Assad to keep out of their way while they were doing it or they risked being bombed too.

Assad was losing and Russia intervened on their side. They also began bombing raids. They told Russians and anyone else who’d listen that they were only bombing DAESH, but almost all their raids were against moderate rebels – the ones who had started by protesting peacefully and been attacked by Assad.

When Russia was proven to be bombing civilians they said it was the fault of the US because the US wouldn’t provide them with the location of moderate rebels so they could avoid them. Of course, Russia couldn’t be trusted with the location.

After pretending to negotiate a peace for months and Russian intervention, Assad is now winning. The moderate rebels have been almost completely wiped out. The bad ones are almost the only ones left and no one wants them in charge. Assad is the best option left. For the first time since WWII, Russia is a player in the Middle East.

And he will outmanoeuvre Trump every time.

Agree with that. I’ve been reading CounterPunch for years. It was the particular writer I’m not familiar with.

I agree too that negative things about Russia have been left out. In fact, Kavanagh is making a (sometimes begrudging) case for their intervention. To be honest, I don’t know what to think about a lot of this. On the one hand, all sides are covered in blood of innocents and I have sympathy with those who say we shouldn’t provide moral support to either side, who are just trying to gain in geopolitical terms from a desperate situation. Yet he argues ISIS would be in Damascus now if not for the intervention. Are we confident it wouldn’t? And what are the lessons we need to learn about these kinds of disasters? One surely involves the importance of adherence to international law. The US’s habit of intervening when and where it wants is a big part of how we got here. Russia seems technically within international law in supporting a sovereign govt, no matter what we think of Assad. International laws have been agreed not to guarantee humane governments, but to ensure the world doesn’t descend into a might-means-right chaos. This isn’t always going to lead to an outcome we’re happy with, but surely the alternative of having no rules has been demonstrated to be worse.

I’ve said before that I don’t trust Putin as far as I can throw him, but I haven’t heard a convincing argument that this was the worst outcome either. I can’t see where any of the realistic outcomes would be good.

I just wondered who they were so I looked them up. I wasn’t necessarily making any judgment. Like you, I didn’t know who they were and I wanted to know if they were independent. They appear to be, which is a good thing. I obviously don’t agree with them, but as long as they are speaking with their own voice they can go for it as much as they like.

There are news organisations that are funded by governments all over the place, and whether I agree with them or not I tend to be more suspicious of their viewpoint.

What I think I’m saying is people who disagree with me genuinely are OK, but people who disagree because they’re paid to give me pause.

Thanks, Heather, I’m keen to sift through this stuff, so will respond when I have more time. For now, I’ll just inquire as to why you included the Wiki quote at the end? You seem to want to discredit the writer via association with CounterPunch, yet this is a plaudit for them.

I find this article extreme extremely biased in favour of Russia. There are a lot of things being left out, like the fact Putin has been providing weapons etc to Syria from the beginning, that Assad attacked his own people when the protests were peaceful and used chemical weapons and barrel bombs against civilians. That the opposition to Assad included many moderate groups in the beginning and that was who the US was supporting, and they did so because of Russian intervention on the side of Assad, and a whole lot more.

I’m certainly not saying the the US was on the side of the angels, because they definitely weren’t.

The rest of the article misses out several important points too in opposition to Russia. The attack that the Kiev government is “Nazi-infested” is propaganda that comes directly from Russia. Fascist parties got about 1% of the vote in Ukraine, which no one would ever know if they listened solely to Russian-approved media. The former president, who was a Putin-puppet (as opposed to the current US-puppet) fired on his own people, killing dozens, ffs! His majority was one million. He got two million votes from Crimea, so he was on his way out anyway. Also, he was introducing a policy that a majority didn’t want that aligned his country economically with Russia rather than the EU. Most people want to align with the EU because it’s wealthier and therefore there’s more opportunity there.

From Wikipedia: “CounterPunch-sourced news stories have frequently featured in the Project Censored annual list of top 25 “underreported, mis-reported, or censored” news stories…”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/26/game-change-syria-interrupted/

@j.a.m I’m probably going to regret asking this, but what is the “last best hope.”

@j.a.m. Have you not taken in anything I’ve ever written? You’ve just said you thought I was a part of the authoritarian left, which is a group I’ve always railed against. I’ve constantly stood up for freedom of speech, including for those I don’t agree with. That’s not the position of the regressive left and the main reason I oppose them.

That doesn’t mean I give up my right to argue against those I disagree with. I have a problem with authoritarians on both the left and the right. Being anti- authoritarian is NOT the same as being a libertarian, which imo is a thoughtless, selfish, ideology which is about the rich getting richer and f***everyone else. It is damaging to society and doesn’t result in what it says are its goals.

Taken to its logical conclusion, libertarianism would return society to the structure of medieval times. That would include a significant shrinking in the economy. An economy grows better when the wealth is spread amongst more people. That is better for everyone.

And a society is better when it is more accepting of difference too. Those who reject equality for others based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, gender identification etc are creating division and therefore conflict.

It also amazes me how the definition of libertarian in the US includes things like being anti-choice. They clearly care more about political power and adopt that stance officially in order to align themselves with the GOP.

In NZ, where the Libertarians are a separate political party, almost no one votes for them. Even when a popular former captain of the All Blacks was their leader, they couldn’t even manage 1%. The bankruptcy of their ideology is clear to almost everyone.

Of course, our society is generally more egalitarian than yours, so they do better there.

Anyone remotely acquainted with the wretched history of the earth is awed by the wonders of its last best hope. And (one need not wonder) is sincerely and humbly grateful.

@HH: You hate being told what to do? Wow, great to hear you’ve embraced your inner libertarian. Until now your commentary suggested you favor concentrating power and resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats so they can make us all conform to so-called “progressive” norms (trashing conscience rights in the bargain). Glad you’ve seen the light!